Development application · Site Plan Approval (SA)
Development application 20 210382 NNY 17 SA
- Status
- Closed
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted
- 23 October 2020
- No appeal recorded
- Communications on linked registrations
- 0
Application record
- Type
- Site Plan Approval (SA)
- Addresses
- 2901 Bayview Ave
- Ward
- Ward 17 · Shelley Carroll
- Submitted
- 23 October 2020
- Status
- Closed
- Outcome recorded
- Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Decision date
- Not recorded in the open data
- Appealed
- No appeal recorded
- Size stated in the description
- 344 units; 39,600 m² gross floor area
- Related file
- 17 208789 NNY 24 OZ
Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page
Description
Site Plan application to permit the proposal for the North development consisting of two six-storey buildings, one 20-storey tower and a commercial addition to the existing shopping centre for a total gross floor area of 39,600 square metres (30,800 residential gross floor area and 8,800 nonresidential gross floor area); 344 residential units, of which 14 units would be affordable rental units in the 20-storey tower; (OPA AND ZBA Application: 17 208789 NNY 24 OZ).
Linked lobbying registrations
No published lobbying registrations are linked to this application.
Other registrations that mention this application's addresses
Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.
- QuadReal Property Group Limited PartnershipSM34672 · 26 July 2023 · “2901 Bayview Avenue.”
- QuadReal Property Group Limited PartnershipSM24051 · 23 February 2017 · “2901 Bayview Avenue”
- Bentall KennedySM22248 · 21 September 2015 · “2901 Bayview Ave”
- Orlando CorporationSM12912 · 7 April 2009 · “2901 Bayview Avenue”
Comparison with similar applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 17
14 lobbied · 20 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,236 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 14 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 20 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=63) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,236 | — | 97% (n=98) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.